Thanks Thomas!
I have a few other changes. I think I can add this today, Glen.
By the way I am seeing functional-test failures in comprehensive
tests...seems to be related to the fact the
elements with anonymous types no longer have type mappings in the
deploy.wsdd....
I am also getting failures in functional tests during the tcp test of stock
quote. The test complains
that tcp is not a valid transport.
Is anyone else seeing these problems.
Rich Scheuerle
XML & Web Services Development
512-838-5115 (IBM TL 678-5115)
Glen Daniels
<gdaniels@macrome To: "'[EMAIL PROTECTED]'"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
dia.com> cc:
Subject: RE: Bugfix and performance
enhancement for WSDL generation (Class
03/06/2002 08:10 Rep.java)
AM
Please respond to
axis-dev
Thank you, Thomas! I'll take a look at this today once I get in to work,
and see about committing it.
--Glen
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas Börkel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2002 8:45 AM
> To: Axis Dev Mailinglist
> Subject: Bugfix and performance enhancement for WSDL generation
> (ClassRep.java)
>
>
> HI!
>
> Some days ago, I have posted benchmarks for bcel and
> tt-bytecode in the user mailinglist. Any comments on this?
>
>
> Also, both algorithms in Axis (old bcel and new tt-bytecode)
> have the same flaw, if for example one parameter is a String.
>
>
> Consider this method signature:
>
> public String parameterTest(short s, int i, double d,
> String t, boolean b)
>
>
> Now, both algorithms cannot find out the name of the String
> parameter, because there is a gap in the local var table.
> Instead, the boolean parameter gets the name of the String
> parameter. So Axis, sees the names like this:
>
> {s, i, d, null, t}
>
>
> And so, in the WSDL, it's
>
> parameterTest(s, i, d, in3, t)
>
>
> I have fixed this in my benchmark and also in yesterday's
> ClassRep.java. I made also the changes for better performance
> of tt-bytecode, although it still takes twice as long as bcel
> (but it's MUCH faster than before). I don't know, if you want
> to integrate the performance enhancement, because it's a
> little bit kludgy. See for yourself.
>
>
> Please find attached:
> - GetParamBench3.java (my benchmark, including bugfix and
> performance enhancement)
> - ClassRep1.java (version including the bugfix)
> - ClassRep2.java (version including the bugfix and
> performance enhancement)
>
> Regards,
> Thomas
>
>
